F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Courtney Mil]

Having been away for a couple of days, I feel I should comment on some of the stuff posted here in the last couple of days.


Harrier manoeuvrability.

First, remember there are big differences between SHAR, GR1/3 and GR5/7/9, so the term 'Harrier' means something very different today from 30 years ago. Anyway, as you were talking about the Falklands, let’s stick to first generation Harrier. As has been stated, it was a high wing loader with dry power only and, therefore, did not turn well. We seemed to do pretty well against it in theF4, which also had a high wing loading. As I have said before, beware fighting blue against blue to evaluate capability against an enemy.

As for viffing, it falls into the same category as the 50° aoa manoeuvre, unless your adversary has really screwed it up, you should die before the manoeuvre is complete. The only situation where I ever saw it used effectively was in a rather non-representative,1v1 guns-only fight as a last ditch to try to defeat a tracking guns shot. Henra’s comment at post #2659 is correct.

During the Falklands, however, none of this was particularly relevant. The Argentinean pilots were based 400 miles or more from the fight and had neither the fuel nor the inclination to get tangled up in a fight with the Harriers. Also, their weapons and pilot training/experience were inferior. I don’t think exMudmover was being at all insulting in his comment. The AIM9L is a pretty straightforward weapon to operate and the Argentinean pilots were simply flying as fast and as low as they could (that was very fast and very low in most cases) to try to stay away from the Harriers whilst getting to and from their targets. That meant radar and visual engagements, but not much air combat of the'turning and burning' kind. Those facts in no way detract from the skill and bravery of the RN and RAF pilots involved inthe Falklands war – I certainly don’t think stating those facts is ‘slagging’ anyone off.


Fact versus Fiction.

Not a brilliantly written piece, maybe a bit of a curate’s egg. A couple of points that people here seem to have focussed on.

First, JTIDS/Link 16 confusion. Some clearly don’t understand, so to clarify, JTIDS is the bearer system, Link 16 is the NATO message specification, which is carried by JTIDS. It’s a bit like the difference between the World Wide Web and the Internet. JTIDS/Link16 worked well in the case of the “(British) RAF’sTornado F-3 air defence fighter” (WRONG! Air Defence INTERCEPTOR) because we were the only players in those exercise that had it. That soon changed. Also the tactics used became less effective with time. That said, and as I have said before, the F3 was a very capable INTERCEPTOR in its adulthood. I just took a while to get there.

Second, the 60 g missile. What happens to a missile when it is forced to turn at 60 g? It slows down. The more it slows down, the more lead it requires to achieve an intercept and, therefore, the further it has to turn – look up proportional navigation. And that it the trick to defeating the long range shot and why (see my earlier poston the subject) single or multiple high-performance turns by the target are so effective – not just an f-pol manoeuvre. As an aside, that is also why ‘all-round’ stealth is necessary, not just desirable – if the LO technology is optimised head on, any crank, f-pol manoeuvre or turn away will instantly expose the higher RCS to the bad guys.

With any modern fighter, it is the entire system that’s important, not just selected features on a platform such as stealth, agility, power, weapons, etc.